38 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



In Washington the division of game protection, somewhat separated 

 from the fish department by the act of 1905 but still under the control 

 of the State fish commissioner, is maintained exclusively by the license 

 fees paid into the State treasury; and the fees paid into the county 

 treasury are used for game protection in the count3^ In Idaho, just 

 prior to the session of the legislature in 1905, opposition to the main- 

 tenance of a State game department supported by appropriations from 

 the general treasury of the State threatened the abolition of the warden 

 system. Anticipating this contingency, the advocates of a State office 

 drafted a new bill covering the entire field of game protection, from 

 the establishment of a State wardenship to the minutest detail of close 

 seasons, and placed the whole upon a self-sustaining basis by means of 

 the license system. This bill became a law, and during the first 3'ear 

 of its operation the sum of $16,050 was collected from the issuance of 

 licenses alone. 



One of the most conspicuous examples of a self-sustaining depart- 

 ment was that of Missouri, prior to recent legislation a))olishing the 

 game protection fund. The general game act of 1905 established 

 resident and nonresident licenses for hunting, and directed that the 

 returns from them should be paid into the State treasury to the credit 

 of the 'game protection fund,' which also included fines for violation 

 of the act and certain small fees for issuing special permits. The act 

 became efi'ective on June 16, and the governor appointed a State game 

 warden, who organized the department upon a working basis. At the 

 end of the year, after all expenses of the department ($11,998.33) had 

 been paid, there remained in the treasury to the credit of the game- 

 protection fund $36,932.37.'* The license fees collected from nonresi- 

 dents hunting in Florida during the single open season of 1906-7 

 demonstrate the feasibility of supporting a State wardenship in that 

 State 1)3^ the funds accruing from this source alone. The amount was 

 $6,380, and it is to be remembered that as the ver3" unsatisfactory and 

 inefficient system of county wardens without organization or central 

 head is in etf'ect there, this amount is undoul)tedl3^ much less than it 

 should and would have been if the law requiring noncitizens to procure 

 licenses had been strictl3^ enforced. * 



In most of the States and Territories, either the whole or part of 

 fines arising from prosecutions for violations of the game laws are 

 used for purposes of game protection, as shown in the table on pages 



« This act was repealed in 1907 and superseded by a law which destroyed the game 

 protection fund, directing that all license fees be paid into county treasury for roads. 

 When the law of 1905 was repealed, the balance of $47,000 then remaining in the 

 game fund was divided, $20,000 being j^aid to the fish commission, and $27,000 paid 

 into the general fund of the State. 



&See 'Game Protection in Florida,' Circular No. 59 of the Biological Survey, U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture, 1907. 



